Ep. 1536 - WATCH: Hilariously Unhinged LGBT Activists Turn City Council Meeting Into Circus

Have you checked lately to see if your home's title is still in your name?

With one forged document, scammers can steal your home's title and its equity.

But now you can protect yourself from this crime.

Home Title Lock's million-dollar triple lock protection gives 24-7 title monitoring,

urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud does happen,

they'll spend up to a million dollars to fix fraud and restore your title.

Get a free title history report and access your personal title expert,

a $250 value when you sign up at hometitlelock.com and use promo code Daily Wire. That's hometitlelock.com, promo code Daily Wire.
Today on the Matt Wall Show, trans activists are centered on a city council meeting in Massachusetts. When I show you the footage from this thing, you'll have a hard time believing that it isn't satire, but it's real.
Also a mentorship program for LGBT youth, quote unquote, is set to receive over a million dollars in tax funding. But what does this mentorship consist of? We'll find out.
A reparations bill has been reintroduced. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley says reparations are owed because slaves built our country.
Is that actually true? And what exactly is a work husband or work wife? And why are they now selling Valentine's Day cards for them? And Pope Francis issued a letter condemning Trump's immigration policies as a Catholic. I don't especially enjoy calling

out the Pope, but if I need to, I will. And today I need to talk about all that and more today on

The Matt Wall Show. Are you looking for a better quality meat? Good Ranchers delivers 100% American beef, chicken, and wild-caught seafood straight to your door.
Every cut is steakhouse-grade with no antibiotics or hormones. Subscribe now using code DAILYWIRE to get your free bacon, ground beef, seed oil-free chicken nuggets, or salmon in every order for an entire year, plus $40 off.
That's goodranchers.com, promo code DAILYWIRE. Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
One of the unavoidable consequences of all the lies we've been told lately is that you begin to question some older historical claims that are treated as gospel. And that's a rational response.
After all, if the experts in the 21st century are willing to lie to us about pandemics and the Iraq war and many other things, then you can only imagine how many lies were being told in previous centuries before people had access to social media and the internet. Seeing what happened to Donald Trump, you might wonder whether Richard Nixon was really a crook, for example, or you might question whether we were told the truth about JFK's assassination or the whole backstory that's been created around legendary figures like Pocahontas and Harriet Tubman, etc.
Today, there's yet another historical narrative that we can add to this list. After reviewing recent events, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that we really need to take a closer look at the Salem witch trials and what they were actually all about.
If you remember from history class, we were told that the Salem witch trials were a grave historic injustice because dozens of people in Salem were falsely accused of being insane witches. And as we all know, insane witches are not a thing, and prosecutors never should have suggested such a thing.
You can't just go around accusing people of going completely crazy because they're under demonic influence. That would be ridiculous.
And if witches and demons did exist, they certainly wouldn't exist in a place like colonial Massachusetts, where everybody's well-educated and well-spoken. So whatever trials took place were completely null and void.
They were a travesty of justice. Anyway, that's how we were taught to think about this whole shameful episode in United States history.
And it's an appealing line of reasoning. At least it's appealing right up until the moment that you see footage from this week's city council meeting in Worcester, Massachusetts, It's just a short drive from Salem.
I don't want to overstate things here. I'm mostly going to let the footage speak for itself.
And to be clear, I'm not endorsing any of the punishments that were reportedly handed out during the Salem witch trials or anything like that. I couldn't endorse such a thing, especially I couldn't do that on YouTube.
All I'm saying is that once you see this footage, you have to wonder what exactly they're putting in the water up in that neck of the woods. It's enough to make you rethink a lot of prior assumptions that you may have had.
Now, this footage comes from a city council meeting that lasted several hours, and it concerned a proposed resolution to declare that Worcester, Massachusetts is a sanctuary city for transgender and gender-fluid individuals. It's never really explained what exactly that means or why it's necessary.
These people are very worried that the Trump administration is going to deport transgender and gender-fluid people, apparently, even though nobody has suggested doing that. In fact, there had been no laws proposed anywhere by anyone that would have any impact on the vast majority of the people that you will see in this council meeting.
Yet they held a public hearing to discuss their concerns anyway. And one by one, they demonstrated that we are severely, and I mean really severely, underestimating the number of completely unhinged people who live in the state of Massachusetts.
Whatever the estimate was, it's far too low. So here's just a small part of what took place.
I need the city to protect me because the federal government won't. And if you think you're afraid of Trump, you should say how afraid of Trump I am.
Can you wrap up, please? Yes, I can. If you say that you're afraid of Trump? You should say how afraid of Trump I am.
Can you wrap up please? Yes, I can. If you say that you're afraid of Trump and that's why you don't want the city to be a safe space for trans people, you better prepare for trans people to make this a very unsafe space.
I'm shaking right now. I don't want to be here.
Can you wrap up please? I'm sorry, am I taking too long pleading for my life? You remembered how many children I have and the two of them are trans. I speak as both the B and the T in the LGBT.
I'm multiply disabled. I have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, which is a connective tissue disorder that causes me immense physical pain.
I'm on the autism spectrum and I have narcolepsy and I couldn't drive myself here. So I had to hide from my driver that I was in drag, which is not an easy thing to do in drag.
I do not want to be here. It's my day off.
I do not want to be in your DMs. I have narcolepsy.
I have autism. I'm disabled.
I stubbed my toe this morning. I have a strange rash on my foot.
I have athlete's foot. Just got to list.
List all. This is how it works at a council meeting when there are a bunch of leftists showing up.
You just begin. They get three minutes to speak.
And the first two and a half minutes are consumed by them listing all of their credentials. And their credentials are just all the things that they're, you know, all the different ways that they're victims and all the things they're whining about.
And we say this a lot, but it really does feel like a parody when you watch the video. You know, it's like these people can't be real, yet they are.
I don't want to be here, complains the trans activists. Well, okay, then leave.
Nobody's forcing you to be there. That's how sane people handle situations they don't want to be involved with.
But of course, from the perspective of the trans activists, they have no agency whatsoever. Everything that happens to them is the result of some nefarious outside force.
They're perpetually oppressed, even when they're making voluntary decisions to appear at council meetings. It's one of the many reasons that these people are deeply and profoundly unhappy.
And as you may have just noticed, that rage often leads to violent thoughts. Now, if you're listening to the audio podcast, I'll point out that behind all these speakers, there's a sign that reads, I see you.
Silence equals death. That's obviously an explicit threat that's being made to the members of the Worcester City Council.
But just in case they didn't get the message, the first speaker declares that the city council had better vote the right way or else, quote, you better prepare for trans people to make this a very unsafe space. And just to reiterate, this is what the speaker looked like.
This is the look. I mean, she looks like a Scooby-Doo villain and not very threatening, but still the sort of person who, if you did see her in public, your first move is to cross the street and keep some distance.
I mean, anyone who chooses to dress like a demonically possessed department store mannequin is clearly not the sort of person that you want to consort with. And again, just to be clear, this city council meeting is about a meaningless resolution to declare Worcester a sanctuary city for transgenderism.
This is a resolution that does not affect the law in any way.

It doesn't give any new protections to anyone.

It doesn't change day-to-day life at all for anyone.

But trans activists were threatening the city council over it.

And as the meeting continued, their behavior became even more irate

and even more unhinged.

Watch.

Can you look at me and tell me how many of my friends need to die before you do anything? Please wrap up. Look at me! Okay, we're all done here.
Pathetic. Well done.
I speak as someone who is always misgendered, like all the time. People refer to me as sir when I prefer to be referred to as ma'am.
I speak as someone who is afraid to use public toilets. I speak as someone who is a member of this community and is a queer person.
The quote there was, I speak as someone who was afraid to use public toilets. And that may be the first time in American history that that exact line has been uttered at a city council meeting or in any official meeting of any kind.
And he delivered that line with no sense of irony or hesitation or shame or anything. Like it's part of his identity or some kind of advanced qualification.
Somebody else might say, I speak as a doctor or I speak as an experienced plumber, but not this guy. He speaks as someone who is afraid to use public toilets.
So quiet down and listen to what he's about to say. Now, frankly, it's a line worth thinking about because it does suggest that at least in this guy's case, there's a chance his problem can be solved pretty easily.
Obviously, everyone's going to keep calling him sir because he's a male. That particular issue is a non-starter.
But the toilet problem, I don't want to think too much about it. It could just be a dietary thing.
Many adult males have been afraid to use public toilets at one time or another. Maybe the root of the problem is that the public toilets in Worcester don't flush properly or something.
This is an issue that maybe demands more investigation. But at the same time, this footage is also proof that the federal government should stop funding the city of Worcester, Massachusetts immediately.
If anybody from Doge is listening, this is a pretty obvious place to make some more cuts. The second congressional district in Massachusetts, which includes the city of Worcester, received more than $20 million from the federal government in the last fiscal year alone.
Several million of your taxpayer dollars went to alleged improvements on something called Mill Street in Worcester, including the establishment of even more bike lanes that interrupt the flow of traffic. None of this funding should continue, obviously.
There was no reason for it in the first place. And there's certainly no reason for it now, now that we know Worcester is essentially an open air asylum.
There was one more moment from this city council meeting that I want to highlight. And this is genuinely one of the most disturbing pieces of footage that you will see.
Trans activists handed a script to a seven-year-old child who was wearing a land back shirt with an upside-down American flag on it. And we're going to blur his face, obviously, but here's the moment.
Noticing people here are trying to control the rights of others, and that's not right. We should make Western a sanctuary city for trans people.
Everybody deserves to feel feel safe and everybody needs to feel safe. I've lived here for four years and there hasn't really been any changes in how people feel safe in the city.
My birthday is this Saturday and all I want is peace and for you to vote yes. Please don't let me down for my birthday.
There's a lot of queer people that I love. And to Candy Carlson, you should know to never call someone.
It's I'm seven and I know better. The kids are watching and we're ready to vote you out.
The applause at the end is almost as disturbing as everything that came before it. This is a child who's clearly being manipulated in about a million different ways.
And the trans activists in Worcester loved it. They have no problem poisoning the mind of a young child, exploiting children, as we know.
They're happy to convince a child that he needs to be castrated. I mean, this is what they've been doing now for years.
So of course, they're also going to be happy to hand a child a script in order to push some low effort, emotional blackmail. And the script doesn't even make sense, by the way.
I mean, he says at the end, the kids are watching and we're going to vote you out. But of course, children can't vote, even in Massachusetts.
So whoever wrote this script, and it was not the child, but whoever wrote it kind of slipped up a bit there. As far as I could tell, the point of this speech was to attack a member of the city council who supposedly referred to a self-described non-binary member of the Worcester City Council as an it instead of a they.
And that led to a whole crisis in Massachusetts just a few weeks ago, in which this non-binary quote-unquote city councilman decided to go on a paid leave of absence. Watch.
This morning, the first openly non-binary lawmaker in Massachusetts history taking a leave of absence from their post. We're talking about Worcester City Councilor-at-Large Thu Nguyen says it's to focus on their mental health, saying they faced a discriminatory and toxic culture on the council.
Mr. Chairman, under your leadership, I have felt unsafe around this council body.
I have faced transphobia with being misgendered and recently learned that I have been dehumanized to a point where I'm being referred to as it by my colleagues on this council. Council Wynn made those comments at a city council meeting Tuesday night.
Wynn also said they attend the council meetings via Zoom because they feel unsafe at City Hall. I really, really wished I felt safe enough to show up on the council floor.
By the way, it is in fact the grammatically correct gender-neutral pronoun.

They is not, because they refers to multiple people.

It is actually the correct, the grammatically correct gender-neutral pronoun.

If it sounds dehumanizing, it's because it is.

It's unhuman.

And that's because in the human species, you're either male or female. There is no such thing as non-binary in the human species.
And so if you identify as non-binary, you have dehumanized yourself. You are claiming to be something other than human, because if you're human, you can only be male or female.
But of course, no one would explain that to this person who I think is a male. But you see, it's just too dangerous in the Worcester City Council.
So I'm afraid that in addition to not showing up to work and doing everything remotely, he's saying, I'm not going to do anything at all. I'm not going to work and the taxpayers are going to continue to pay me.
An indefinite paid vacation is the only thing that can heal my deep wounds. And you really can't blame this person, honestly.
If people in Worcester are so dumb that they fall for this, they deserve to have their money stolen. They deserve for their city to turn into a circus act, which is what's happened.
While the representatives skip work because of, quote unquote, misgendering. At the very least, it's entertainment for the rest of the country.
As soon as we cut their funding, then we could just sit back and truly enjoy it. Or we wouldn't be able to enjoy it if not for the fact that there are kids getting mixed up in the middle of all this nonsense.
And for Democrats, it will not be so enjoyable. And that's because these activists are self-caricatures who have been steering the ship for the Democrat Party for many, many years.
Based on what just happened at the DNC that we talked about a few days ago, we know that they're still steering the ship. And in the end, that is a pathway to complete and total disaster for the simple reason that these people are incapable of leading anything.
They can't lead a political movement, much less a country, because they're all pathological narcissists who can't see even two inches beyond their own egos. As it stands, Worcester, Massachusetts seems determined to turn itself into a haven for these self-absorbed crackpots, and so does the Democrat Party.
And the end result will be that the vast majority of Americans, sane people, are going to stay far away from both Worcester, Massachusetts, and the Democrat Party. They think they're creating a sanctuary, but they've actually created something else entirely.
They've created a monument to the confusion and incoherence of gender ideology. And like Worcester, Massachusetts, that ideology is now collapsing in dramatic and sometimes hilarious fashion right before our eyes.
Now let's get to our five headlines. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
GCU believes in equal opportunity that the American dream starts with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing, creates a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God.
Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.
The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private Christian affordable. Visit gcu.edu.
Daily Wire reports the United States government is set to spend over $1.5 million in taxpayer money bankrolling a far-left group's LGBT mentorship program for children as young as 12 years old in Los Angeles and on campus activism for K-12 students. The LifeWorks Mentorship Program is one of the initiatives from the Los Angeles LGBT Center that's benefiting from the financial backing of the federal government, with the Department of Health and Human Services agreeing to put up nearly a million dollars in support of it.
The LifeWorks 101 Mentoring Program gives LGBTQ plus youth ages 24 and under the opportunity to be matched with an adult in the community, according to a description from the Los Angeles LGBT Center. And if you go to this website, you'll find a video all about this mentorship program.
And we'll play a little bit of that. Here it is.
We need mentors like you. Like you.
Like you. Mentors like you.
Like you. We really need mentors like you.
I'm a youth with a lot going on. I really needed direction in my life.
Because I didn't have any gay friends, I didn't have any connection with the gay community whatsoever.

The MentorMatch program was what I needed. There's kind of an orphaned quality to LGBTQ youth because you very rarely have someone to model after.
There's just such high rates of family not accepting queer youth. A lot of us have gone through a period of self-parenting.
All of us can remember back to when we were young and we didn't have those role models in our lives. There's a mental health aspect to it that really helped me.
And being comfortable in who I am. It gave me a lasting relationship that I find really valuable.
When there's days I question my identity, Rasta reminds me

that it does get better, you know, and we do better and she's an example of it.

It's amazing. It's fun.
Me like, making a new friend and everything is cool.

The interests that youth need these days are people that are capable of being

honest with themselves. Yes, honest with themselves, which is exactly

Thank you. The mentors that youth need these days are people that are capable of being honest with themselves.
Yes, honest with themselves, which is exactly what this guy isn't. He also isn't someone who any sane person would want mentoring a child.
Although, to be fair, not all of the mentees are children. You know, this is a mentorship for LGBT kids that goes up to the age of 24.
So they're also matching full-grown gay men with other gay men in the name of mentorship. And we know what mentorship likely means in that context, quite a euphemism, which is why, of course, the much greater outrage is that they are also involving actual children in this, children as young as 12 years old, matching them up with adult quote-unquote mentors.
So this is systemic, systematic, rather tax-funded grooming, obviously. And you can hear it in the video.
I mean, they admit it. You hear that girl say that, well, someday she questions her identity, but she has her trans mentor to get her through those moments.
And what does that mean? It means that she has moments where she begins to see that the false identity she's constructed for herself is false. She's

questioning her kind of unreal fantasy land self-identity, but her trans quote-unquote

mentor pulls her back down, pulls her back into it, pulls her back into confusion, makes sure that

she never comes to understand and accept her biological identity. And that's grooming.
That's indoctrination. These words are synonymous.
And of course, the sad truth is that these kids really do actually need real mentorship. They desperately need actual mentorship.
Instead, they get this. They get taken advantage of.
And all of the confusion and emotional and psychological chaos that led them to this point is only made worse and intentionally so. And it's all happening on the taxpayer dime.
So obviously, the Trump administration needs to put an end to this and every program like it across the country. This is not the only one, that's for sure.
But you kind of get an appreciation for just the Herculean task that Trump and Doge and Elon Musk are undertaking. I mean, literally like a million examples of this kind of thing, right? I mean, thousands, at least thousands of examples of this kind of thing.
And all you can do is go line by line and root out all of it. And hopefully this is next on the list.
NBC News has this report. Representative Ayanna Pressley will reintroduce H.R.
40, federal legislation to study reparations for slavery. Did this on Wednesday as the Trump administration leads a wide-scale rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the federal government.
The bill, which had 130 co-sponsors in the last session, is not likely to advance under the Republican-controlled Congress, and the White House has previously been opposed to any reparations effort. So this is a symbolic gesture.
It's obviously not going to go anywhere.

And the bill's not going to pass. And even if somehow, which it wouldn't, it did pass, Trump would not sign it.
So it's a symbolic effort. But it kind of shows you where the Democrat Party is right now, where their heads are.
and and

on that note

there was a bunch of Democrats that got together to talk about this and why we need reparations. Here is Ayanna Pressley, for example, trying to explain.
We can legislate justice. We can legislate healing.

And we are certainly long overdue.

And for those that would say we need to just get over it, that's interesting.

When as a nation you are benefiting right now from an economy that was built on the brutalized backs and the indignities and the horrors of chattel slavery in our African ancestors. Okay, a few things.
First of all, no, you cannot legislate healing. She says, we can legislate healing.
No, there is no legislation that can heal anything.

Nobody's ever been healed by legislation.

I wish it worked that way, but it doesn't.

I wish all physical and emotional wounds could be healed.

I wish you could pass the Physical and Emotional Wound Healing Act of 2025,

and everybody would just feel better.

But it doesn't work that way.

And especially in this case, because there is nothing to heal.

Yes, Ayanna Pressley, you should just get over it. Yeah, you need to get over slavery.
You do. You definitely do.
Get the hell over it. You need to get over it.
Yeah, your whole life revolves around pity and emotional blackmail and whining incessantly about the past. That's your whole life.
And it's pathetic and it's grotesque. And you need to just get over it.
Yeah. You see, because if you had yourself suffered some outrage, some indignity, some terrible experience years ago, and all you did was just talk about it and whine about it, then I would tell you that at a certain point in your life, you do need to get over even that and get back to living your life.
No matter what happens to you, at a certain point, you have to get over it at least enough so that you can live a life and focus on other things. And that's what I would say if you personally had suffered some sort of terrible event.
But if the terrible thing happened 150 years ago to people who are all dead now, to people who are all not you, then yes, even more so, you need to get over it. Because it's not even your thing to get over.
It didn't happen to you, Ayanna. You are a United States Congresswoman.
You're doing fine. You have achieved nothing in your position.
You've done absolutely nothing in your position. Not a single damn thing.
You don't deserve to be where you are. You've done nothing for this country or even for your own constituents.
And yet you still have this very powerful position that you don't deserve. So you're doing great.
You're doing better than most people. Slavery did not happen to you.
Stop trying to cash in on the suffering of other people. Get your own suffering.
Damn it. You thief.
You're a thief. You are a thief.
You are stealing other people's suffering and pretending it's your own. Get your own.
And I want to say one other thing too, which is that Ayanna claims that this country, this economy was built on the backs of slave labor. That's what she just said.
And this is the second time somebody has made that claim this week prominently. During the Super Bowl, some race hustler, I forget the woman's name.
I think, in fact, there were multiple people who put out this thing during the Super Bowl claiming that, and I don't know why the Super Bowl has brought this idea out, but claiming that black people built America. Meaning what they're saying, again, is the same thing Iona Presley did, said, which is that the country was built, the economy was built on the backs of black slaves.
And again, this is a claim that we hear a lot. And the notion that the argument for reparations rests really on that claim.
Well, it's not true. It's just not true.
I'm sorry, but it's not true. Go back and look at the numbers.
This stuff is quantifiable. Cotton exports, for example, accounted for like five or six percent of our GDP before the Civil War.
Okay, like 5% or 6%. How much of our total economy depended on slave labor prior to the Civil War and abolition? I've read different estimates.
You'll hear different estimates, but it wasn't more than 10 or 12 percent, potentially much less than that.

OK, it certainly was not the majority.

Anyone who tries to tell you that slave labor accounted for 50 plus percent of the U.S. economy is insane.

I mean, that's just an insane person who's never read a book in their life.

No credible historian, not a single one would tell you that. So the point is that slave labor and cotton were a relatively small part of the economy.
And that is just the facts, just the facts, which is why after the Civil War and after the abolition of slavery, our economy took off.

Now, yeah, there was a rough period immediately after the war, obviously. I mean, it was a Civil War, killed 600,000 people, died in the Civil War.
But it did not take long before America was back on track. And without slave labor, the country thrived.
if our economy really depended on slave labor, if black slaves were in fact the backbone, if everything was resting on the backs of African slaves, if they were the driving force of the economy, then when you abolish slavery, it would collapse everything. Okay, it would be the collapse of the country.
And if it ever clawed itself back, it would take decades and probably longer. And that's not what happened.
So who did, quote unquote, build the country?

Well, this country was in fact primarily built by white men.

It just was.

That again is a historical fact.

And what do we mean by built? Well, whatever you mean by the term, it was predominantly white men.

White men developed our system of government.

Thank you. But whatever you mean by the term, it was predominantly white men.
White men developed our system of government. White men came up with our Constitution and also the philosophical foundation of our Constitution and our system of government.
White men were primarily the ones who fought and won our war of independence. White men and the labor of white men accounted for the vast majority, the vast, vast majority of our economy during slavery and after and before.
White men were the pioneers and the soldiers and the inventors and the politicians and the generals and the business leaders. Okay.
Almost all of the great leaders in all of these areas were white men. Almost all of them.
And white men were primarily the ones who abolished slavery on top of it. So that's a historical reality.
And the fact that it's even remotely controversial to say this is such an indictment on many things, but mainly our education system. Because everything I'm saying right now, it should be baffling that I'm even saying it because it's so obvious.

You know, but instead, this is to people who were raised in the public school system

and didn't do much of their own research when they hear a statement like,

well, white men actually were the ones who primarily built the country.

When they hear that.

That's shocking.

It's a shocking statement.

And they want to deny it.

They say.

Well that's what do you mean.

That can't possibly be true.

Okay well again.

However you measure.

Whatever you mean by built.

And however you measure it.

What was the group that was predominantly.

Primarily responsible for it. And it was white men.
It that was predominantly, primarily responsible for it?

And it was white men. It just was.
That's all. Well, with Valentine's Day around the corner, this post on X went viral.
Somebody took a picture from the greeting card section of some store somewhere and let's put the picture up on the screen here. So you see it there.
You can see, well, actually, you can see quite a few objectionable things going on in this picture that went viral on X. And at the bottom, you have Valentine's cards from the pets.
So people are buying themselves love notes from their pets.

I mean, if I worked the cash register at this place and somebody came up with a card from their cat or whatever, I would refuse it.

I would not sell it.

I would refuse them service for their own sake.

I would say I cannot let you do this. this is an intervention because you have hit rock bottom and somebody needs to say something to you.
Once you become the kind of person who buys Valentine's cards for or from your pets, there's no going back. And so you've crossed the Rubicon.
I can't allow it. I can't allow it.
My conscience will not allow it. That's what I would say.
But the thing that's caught most people's attention are the cards at the top there where you have cards for your work wife or your work husband. And this is a thing now, apparently.
Apparently, people are buying Valentine's cards for their work spouses, and I knew that this concept of work wife and work husband existed. This is a term we hear these days.
I didn't know that some stores have sections for them for Valentine's Day, and listen, this obviously shouldn't need to be said, which really could just be the title of this show, I guess. This shouldn't need to be said could be the title of the show.
That's pretty much everything I say on the show, stuff that shouldn't need to be said. But regardless, if your wife has a work husband, okay, she's cheating on you.
And likewise, if your husband has a work wife, he cheating on you that's called adultery it is at the very like by definition it's adultery it is at the very least an emotional affair on its way to becoming a physical affair or it already is a physical affair it probably already is one and um you know the problem is not just that your spouse is calling someone else besides you a spouse.

Even if it's supposed to be in a half-joking way, it's still wildly inappropriate, outrageously, ridiculously inappropriate. But the problem is not just the name.
It's that if you have a work spouse, quote unquote, it means that you've established an intimate friendship with a member of the opposite sex, which is just never okay as a married person. A married person should not have any intimate friendships with members of the opposite sex.
Now, does that mean a married person can't have any friends, period, who are the opposite sex? That doesn't really mean that. There are appropriate ways for, say, a married man to be friends with a woman.
And the best option is that this is someone who you and your wife are both friends with, and the woman is married, and so you and your spouse are friends with this other couple. There's a scenario where you might be quote-unquote friends with a member of opposite sex as a married person, and it's fine.
For a married couple to have friends that are other married couples, that's fine. That's healthy.
That's a good thing. You should have those kinds of friends.
But outside of that, if you have a friend of the opposite sex as a married person, and this is not a mutual friend who is part of a couple that you and your spouse are friends with, if this is just your friend, then by friend, we should be talking about someone who you work with and are friendly with and maybe get along with. But it shouldn't be more than that.
Like that's all that the word friend should really mean in that case. You certainly shouldn't be going out to lunches one-on-one with this person or texting all the time or hanging out one on one or just building any intimacy at all, you should not be doing.
It should be a friend in the broadest, broadest sense. And intimacy is really the point here.
That's the point. Intimacy doesn't always mean, when you talk about being intimate with someone, we use that euphemistically to mean sexual activity, but it doesn't have to mean that.
Intimacy just means most literally closeness. If you are, you know, if someone is an intimate friend, it means that you're, it's a close friend.
This is a close bond. A close bond is intimacy.
And as a married person, you should

simply not have any close bonds with anyone of the opposite sex unless they're an immediate family member. And there should be no intimacy being built or established, formed with a member of opposite with a member of an opposite sex and and if there is, that can only lead to bad places.
There's no win there. What's the win? If you're a married woman and you have a job and you're building an intimate, close relationship with a guy that you work with and he's not your husband, what's the win? How does that make your life better in the end? Where is this going? What's the five-year plan here? What do you think this looks like five years from now? The best you can hope for is that it won't damage your marriage as much as it could.
Now it's just damage mitigation. The best you can hope for is that this intimate relationship you're building with someone who's not your spouse won't completely destroy your marriage.
But it certainly won't help it. And there's a good chance it will totally destroy it.
So as I said, these are just things that should need to be said, but these days they do. I mean, I'll never forget the controversy around Mike Pence way back in ancient times, back in 2016 or whatever, when he infamously said that he doesn't go on lunch dates with women who aren't his wife.
And this was treated as some sort of shocking statement. Meanwhile, to any normal person, you're like, well, yeah, of course not.
Of course you're not. What, am I going to go on a lunch date with a woman who's not my wife? That's bizarre.
I would never do that. But to a lot of people, they saw it as strange, which is one of the reasons why a lot of people just have a very hard time forming and maintaining romantic relationships and marriages.
And this is why. One more thing.
I wanted to play this for you before we get to the comment section. This is a video posted by the reporter Colin Rugg on X.
And this is footage from Utah, apparently. And it shows a car getting hit by a train.
Nobody's in the car. So, you know, it's, you don't have to worry about that.
I'm not going to show you a video where someone gets hit by a car, but hit by a train.

The car gets hit.

No one's in the car.

The driver bails before the train hits the car.

So nobody's hurt.

But I want you to see how this transpired.

How does a car get hit by a train?

And how does the driver have time to bail out of the car, but doesn't have time to move

the car off of the tracks? Did the car break down or something? Was it stuck somehow? Well, no. So let's take a look and I'll narrate this for the benefit of the audio podcast listeners because there's no audio to it, but let's take a look here.
Okay. So the train's coming, the arm goes down.
Okay. Now you got the white SUV on the tracks.
The arm is down. Train is coming.
Tries to back up. Hits the arm.
Okay, what are you going to do now? Well, you could pull forward. Just keep going.
Go forward. Just keep driving.
Just drive. You're fine.
Or you could even just make a U-turn. You could make a U-turn right here, and you've got all this time.
Look at this. Train still's not not there all this time, all this time.
And then this person just hops out of the car, leaves it on the track and it gets hit by the train. Nobody was hurt.
A hundred thousand dollars of damage though. And, uh, and so there you go.
Okay. Now, so this person totally panicked.
This was the most avoidable train collision in history. In the entire history of locomotion, this was the most avoidable accident ever was this.
And here's my point when I look at this. And I'm not just making fun of this guy.
Or let's be honest, probably not a guy. This has woman written all over it.
I'm not, no offense, ladies. I don't mean it, but come on.
There's just no way that was a man. I refuse to believe it.
And if that was a man, then his man card is permanently revoked. Lifetime suspension.
In this life and the next, you're never getting it back if that was a man. But whatever the sex of the driver, here's the point.
When I'm out on the roads, I see this level of bad driving every day, like every day. Now, I've never seen this exact thing happen.
I've never seen a car get hit by a train. But this level of stupidity, this quality of driving, I see every day, every day, all over the place.
We all do. Bad driving is an epidemic.
There's been studies done on this, and I don't know how much you can trust the studies or how exactly you measure that. Well, there are things you can measure, the number of accidents, moving violations, and that sort of thing.
But most of the studies and surveys that have been done have showed this as well, that driving, the quality of driving in this country is getting worse. It's not just your imagination.
And I think we have reached crisis levels of bad driving. We really have.
The fact that this person in the video is allowed to have a license and will keep their license even after this incident tells you that we have a true systemic problem here. And it is widespread.
I mean, it's very widespread. Just the other day, I had to swerve around someone on the highway because they slammed on their brakes so that they could change lanes.
And I had a safe distance. I wasn't riding their bumper, but it's the highway.
We're going 70 miles an hour, keeping up with the speed of traffic. And they slammed on their brakes in order to change lanes.

You should never be slamming your brakes on the highway at all, unless you have to,

because there's someone slamming their brakes in front of you.

But slamming your brakes to change lanes should just never happen.

And this kind of thing happens all the time. I mean, I had someone break suddenly on the highway a few days before that because they were about to miss their exit.
Like I said, this kind of thing, every day I feel like I see this. Someone's about to miss their exit and they panic.
And so they just slam on their brakes, dead stop on the highway in order to hit the exit. Well, here's a newsflash, everybody.
If you're about to miss your exit and the only way to make it is to slam on your brakes or swerve across three lanes of traffic, just miss your exit. It's okay.
You'll be fine. Just miss the exit.
You missed it. It's okay.
Take the next exit and all the roads are connected. The highway is good.
There's another lane going that way. Did you not just take the next exit and turn around and you'll be fine.
You've maybe added five minutes onto your drive time. Maybe.
In exchange, you won't kill yourself and 10 other people. That's a pretty good trade-off.
Here's a similar note because this is something, another thing, this feels like an everyday occurrence. If you're trying to make a left turn onto a busy road during rush hour, and you want to make the left turn across two or three lanes of busy traffic, and you're having trouble finding a safe opening, right? And you have a line of cars piling up behind you.
Many of those cars want to turn right. They could easily turn right, but they got to wait for you because you want to make the left turn across all that traffic.
And you're sitting there for 15 damn minutes and there's no spacing that you feel comfortable. Just take a right turn.
Just turn right and go down the road a bit and make a safe U-turn at the next stoplight.

Okay?

Just do that. Again, you add five minutes maybe.
Actually, you end up saving time because you're not waiting so long to find an opening that you're comfortable with. Okay, and this is the kind of just like panicked, unsure, lacking confidence, irrational decision making that I see people demonstrating on the roads every single day.

Everyone is either driving way too scared and overcautious or they're reckless to the point of suicidal.

Those are

the two extremes that I see from drivers every day, except me. There's 10 or 11 good drivers left on the road.
I'm one of them. And if you're listening to this, you might think that you're one.
Maybe you are. But then that leaves like nine more.
And that's it. We're the only ones.
it's miraculous that we're not all dead.

I don't know how that's possible. There needs to be, like, we need to get serious about this.
There needs to be, we need to ramp up the driver's test. You need to have to take the driver.
I know before I said, well, once you're elderly, once you get to 65 or 70, you should have to retake the driver's test. You probably should have to retake it.
There probably needs to be a system where you retake it every five years unless you earn. So for me, I have not been in an accident or had any kind of moving violation for like 15 years.
Okay. And I think once you get into the decade plus club, we'll call it the decade plus, it's the decade club.
When you make it into the decade club, you have not had any incidents of any kind in 10 plus years. Then, then you've earned the right, you don't have to take the test anymore.
There should be a separate lane on the highway just for you for the decade club. These are the drivers who actually know how to drive.
You get to go on that lane and everybody else, the people I get in accidents every two weeks, like they can have this lane over here. Build a wall.
Okay. Build a wall between, I don't want those people even, I don't want them to have access to my lane at all.
And everybody else, until you get into the decade plus club, until you can go 10 years without an accident or a moving violation, you have to take the driver's tests at least every five years, probably every two years, maybe every year is what we should do. And then just start taking driver's license away.
Like probably without exaggeration, I would, without exaggerating, I would say probably at least 40% of the people on the road shouldn't be on it and should just have their driver's license revoked.

It is just crazy. It's crazy that we let this.
It's insane that we let people who clearly have no clue what they're doing. We let them navigate these giant hunks of metal

down the highway at fatal speeds without having any idea what they're doing. It's nuts.
It is crazy. All right, let's get to the comment section.
You know, as a homeowner, there's nothing more important to me than protecting my family and our home. And with a month of the new year already behind us, I've been thinking about making smart investments that really matter.
Speaking of protecting what matters, let's talk about your gutters. I know not the most exciting topic, but hear me out on this.
I've learned that gutters are trickier than they seem. One wrong move with DIY solutions, and you could end up with costly water damage to your roof, foundation, or siding.
Thankfully, there's a permanent solution waiting for you with LeafFilter. When you invest in LeafFilter, you're protecting your entire home.
LeafFilter's patented technology is designed to help keep everything out except water. No gaps, no holes, just a clean, maintenance-free system backed by a lifetime no-claw guarantee.
Over a million homeowners have already made the switch. And if you're a low-maintenance homeowner like me, just think about how great it would feel to finally check cleaning the gutters off of your ever-growing list of to-dos.
When you schedule your free inspection, a LeafFilter trusted pro will thoroughly clean, realign, and seal your existing gutters before installation. They'll even provide a no-obligation estimate so you know exactly what to expect.
Protect your home and never clean out gutters again with LeafFilter, America's number one gutter protection system. Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at leaffilter.com slash Walsh.
That's a free inspection and up to 30% off at leafffilter.com slash Walsh. See your representative for warranty details.
And we talked for a while about everything from acting to, you know, just the movie business and the direction of the movie business these days. Also, Zachary Levi sort of came out of the political closet back during the election endorsing RFK Jr.
and then Trump. So we talked about that and about AI, which, as you know, we discussed this on the show.
It's a particular concern of

mine and of his. And I thought that was a fascinating part of the conversation.
So that

interview will be tomorrow for the Matt Wall Show. Let's look at some of these comments.

I'm an introvert and don't want to socialize when I get groceries. Someone else agrees.
I'm 100%

pro self-checkout. I say it is much better because I can get through the checkout process so much

faster. I don't want to talk to anyone.
Win-win. Listen, I get that.
I'm an introvert too. I don't have any great desire to make small talk with a cashier or anyone else.
And I could be happy going through a whole day not talking to anyone. But I also recognize that that is not a recipe for a thriving and functioning society.
That's not a recipe for human flourishing.

And the fact is that, and I say this again as a full-on introvert,

the fact is that human existence, life, should force us to have interactions with people frequently when we're out in public.

I understand not wanting to.

I get that.

I relate to that.

But we should.

It's a good thing.

It's good for you. It's good for the other person.
It's just good for society. So it's like when I'm standing in line somewhere or I'm on an elevator or something, I don't really want to make small talk with anybody.
And these days, I don't have to because everybody is looking down at their phones, ignoring each other. But is that actually better? It's like, yeah, I'm getting what I want, but is it actually better? Is that better for me? Is that better for everybody? Is it healthy? Is it ultimately helping me to flourish and be happy? And is it good for society when we're all just these sort of atomized individuals in our own little universes that are all contained on this phone and we're giving more of our attention to the screen than to the world around us.
Is that actually healthy? I think that most people would say that it's not. So, that's the distinction we have to draw.
Let's see. That's your opinion, buddy.
You start, you're starting to sound like a nagging broken record.

All you do is blah, blah, blah.

Learn a real skill,

just unsubscribed.

I'm just trying to understand this.

So you subscribed,

you subscribed to my opinion show and then unsubscribed

because all I do is give my opinions. That's what happened here, just to be clear.
He said, all you do is blah, blah, blah. Well, yeah, that's, yeah.
I mean, what else am I supposed to do? It's a talk show. I talk.
That's it. That's the whole deal.
That's what this is. I don't know.
What did you think you were getting when you subscribed to this? Isn't that like subscribing to our good friends, good ranchers for a delicious box of meat and then getting mad because all they do is send you meat? You know, it's like you leave an angry review on Yelp or something saying, I wanted them to send me shoes, but all I got was steak. But yeah, that's what they do.
Why did you sign up for it if that's not what you wanted? I don't get it. I appreciate the cautionary AI sentiment, Matt.
However, I'm not sure how you justify protecting any jobs from automation. How in the world could you delineate which ones? Well, it's a good question.
I'm not saying that I have the answer to it exactly, but I do know the answer can't be none. The answer to which industries we save can't be no industries.
So it's a matter of balancing things and trade-offs. And I mean, this is the debate that we should be having.
Where do we put up the guardrails? But to me, no guardrails is a recipe for, you know, truly the destruction of human society as we know it. And I don't mean because AI becomes sentient and enslaves us or whatever.
I mean because all the jobs are just wiped out and there's nothing left for people to do. So that's what I'm worried about.
Wow, I rarely hear Matt say something outright stupid, but he just has. According to Matt, it was okay for Andrew Jackson to ignore the Supreme Court, and it's okay for Trump to ignore federal courts if they exceed their legitimacy.
But of course, this is not the issue. Neither Trump nor Matt Walsh can actually determine their legitimacy.
When Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and Matt advocates Trump's ignoring the federal courts, this is simply a matter of brute power. Andrew Jackson at least was honest about it.
Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. Matt is literally, literally, this is not a metaphor, advocating fascism.
The fascist was the bundle of sticks bound around an ax that was carried by officers of the Roman Senate to symbolize the power the Senate had to enforce decisions. Matt is advocating for pure power here.
Does he really not realize it or understand its dangers? No, I would say that you're advocating for pure power. I mean, you're saying that when a judge declares something, it must automatically be obeyed,

even if he has no authority to declare it. So at the very least, if I'm advocating for

quote unquote pure power, then so are you, right? By your own logic, somebody in this scenario is

wielding pure power. So if you have a judge just declaring something, making an order that exceeds his own authority, and then you've got a president who is supposed to be subject to that order, either the president gives in to the will of the judge, and so the judge is now exercising pure power that he has no right to exercise, or the president says no and exercises his own power.
So either way, it comes back to that problem. Now, when judges are acting illegitimately, I agree, it does create a problem of, well, who decides if it was illegitimate? That's a problem, but that's a problem created by the judge.
And so what's your alternative? When you have a judge just standing up one day saying, you know what, the president has to do this thing over here, and he has no authority to tell the president to do it, what do you think should happen? Well, apparently you think the president should just do it, even if there's no actual force of law behind what the judge said. And we gave several examples of judges acting that way.
But I think, as I said yesterday, the most egregious was the judge just telling the president that he has to put up certain webpages. Like, what? You tell me where in the Constitution this federal judge derives the authority to tell the president what websites he has to have on the, or what information he has to have on the websites for his federal agencies.
And when a judge is just being absurd and saying, oh, you have to do this, I think the only appropriate response is to ignore it. That's the way I see it.
The best reason to become a Daily Wire Plus member? Well, you are directly supporting the fight. Every dollar goes right back into building a real alternative to the mainstream.
More shows, more movies, more investigative journalism. This is how we continue to reshape the culture.
But here's another reason. If you like this show, there's more of it waiting for you.
Only Daily Wire Plus members get exclusive content at the end of every episode. The show after show plus live chats and more.
Don't just listen. Be a part of it.
Download the Daily Wire Plus app or go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and become a member today. Actually, there will be no daily cancellation per se today.
I want to talk about Pope Francis. And as a Catholic, I wouldn't feel right canceling the Pope.
So we'll drop that framing for today. But I do need to criticize him.
And because the Pope this week published a letter to U.S. bishops where he condemned Trump's immigration policies.
And now, depending on where you go for your Catholic news and commentary, you may have heard that he didn't really condemn Trump's immigration policies, but he did quite plainly. And I'll show you in a moment.
If you're confused about what he said, well, that's because confusion is the name of the game and has been for as long as Pope Francis has been the pope. These sorts of stories always follow the same pattern.
Pope Francis will issue some unfortunate opinion about some subject. The left-wing press will latch onto it and suddenly rediscover a newfound respect for the Catholic Church, which will then be dropped five seconds later.
Meanwhile, many, though certainly not all, Catholic commentators, even the conservative ones, will try to look for some nuanced way to avoid saying what we all know to be the case, which is that the Pope was wrong to have said whatever he said. The Pope's statements make this kind of obfuscation very plausible, and that's by design.
The point of the Pope issuing any statement or opinion about anything should be to shed light, to lend clarity where confusion and disagreement otherwise reign. But Pope Francis very often does exactly the opposite, and I think pretty clearly he does it deliberately.
And he's been doing it throughout his whole pontificate. He ensures that everybody will be more confused after he's finished talking than they were when he started talking.
But if you sort through the opaque and weirdly passive language that he so often uses, you get to the heart of what he's actually saying. Too often, what he's actually saying is just simply wrong.
We must call it wrong because if we don't, we are allowing falsehoods to be spread unchallenged. Many Catholics feel uncomfortable denouncing falsehoods from the Pope, but I would say that if falsehoods from anyone should be denounced, then they must especially be denounced from the Pope.
As I said, this has been the case through his whole tenure. Most infamously, several years ago, the Pope made alterations to the catechism, declaring that the death penalty is inadmissible.
Now, thanks to the Pope's edits, the catechism now says, quote, there's an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.
Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure that the due protection of citizens, but at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the church teaches in light of the gospel that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.
And she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. Now, there you see the kind of weird and passive opaque language that I mentioned.
He says, there's an increasing awareness. A new understanding has emerged.
Well, what in the world does that mean? Where has this understanding emerged? What do you mean an understanding has emerged? What? Who has become aware? Who understands this? And what exactly have they become aware of? Well, apparently they're aware that the death penalty is inadmissible because it's an attack on the dignity of a person. And the problem with this claim is not just that it directly contradicts what the church had said for 2,000 years prior to that moment and what every great Catholic thinker had ever said, but also most crucially, it contradicts God himself in Holy Scripture.
God prescribes the death penalty for many offenses in the Old Testament, or at least a number of offenses in the Old Testament. The Pope is claiming not just that the death penalty is unnecessary now, but that it is fundamentally immoral, inadmissible, because it is an attack on human dignity.
That's what he said, which means that the Pope has accused God of attacking human dignity, or else the Pope denied the truth of scripture, or else he's claiming that God was unaware of the problems with the death penalty and that he, the Pope, has greater moral awareness than God does. I mean, those are the only three possible interpretations of the Pope's claims.
He wrote what he wrote, and that's what it says. There is no way to cleverly nuance your way out of it.
The Pope said that God committed a moral error. I mean, there's no way for any honest person to deny that.
So the Pope was wrong, very catastrophically wrong, I would say, and we must say so because we are morally bound to side with the truth at all times, even, and I would say especially, when the Pope positions himself against it. And that brings us to his letter on immigration published this week.
It's a long letter with lots of fluff that we can skim past, but the meat of the letter is this part. Quote, the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival.
That said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution, or deterioration of the environment damages the dignity of many men and women and of entire families and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness. Now, there's more nonsense in the Pope's letter,

but this is all we need to talk about. If you parse through the needless wordiness designed to give plausible deniability to those who refuse to acknowledge that the Pope is ever wrong about anything, what you find is that the Pope believes that illegal immigration is not a crime in and of itself, and that deporting people, the act of deportation itself, damages the dignity, those are quotes, of the people being deported.
That's what he said. And he's very wrong on both counts.
Now, as for the first count, it is simply a fact that coming into the country illegally is a violation of the law. The only way for it to not be a violation of the law is to get rid of the laws forbidding it, which would mean forfeiting your borders and your national sovereignty entirely.
The Pope is either demanding that the U.S. surrender itself to this fate, or he's making the nonsensical claim that though we have laws against illegal immigration, we should not consider it a crime when the law is broken, which is like demanding that though we have water, we should not consider a person wet when they jump into it.
I mean, it just makes no sense. And it's wrong.
It's wrong both factually and morally.

The other claim is even worse.

He says, again, quite plainly, after you sift through the superfluous language, he says that

deporting people damages dignity.

And that means that, in the Pope's eyes, deportations are inherently immoral because it is basic

Catholic teaching that any action which intentionally viol Again, nobody's dignity is damaged by facing the rightful consequences of their lawless behavior.

Deportation does not damage the dignity of the illegal alien any more than prison damages the dignity of a convict. The crime that led to those consequences is what damages dignity.
It is in the courageous and honest acceptance of consequences of the crime that the lawbreaker can have his dignity not damaged, but rather restored. True repentance must begin with acceptance of the rightful consequences.
That's why a murderer who got away with his crime cannot claim that he's repented unless he's already turned himself into the police. You cannot repent while hiding from the just punishment that you are due.
That punishment is justice. And justice does not damage dignity.
It never does. It can't.
Again, justice restores dignity. Deportation is the morally right and also logical consequence of sneaking into a country in defiance of its laws.
Getting thrown out of a place is always the rightful consequence of having sneaked into it. There may be other consequences too, and often should be, but the first and most immediate one is that you are forced to leave.
The person kicking you out is not attacking your dignity. If you want to reclaim your dignity, then you should say, you know what, you're right.
I shouldn't have done that. I accept this consequence.
I will leave and I apologize. That is how you can restore your own dignity, by accepting the consequence in a dignified manner.
Now, the Pope should know

something about this. I mean, it's not as though the Vatican is open to whoever wants to come and

live there. As many people have pointed out, the Vatican is surrounded by walls.
And from behind

those walls, the Pope declares that we should not have any. This point about the Pope living behind

walls may be cliched now, but it's not overly simplistic or false. It, in fact, gets right

I don't know. that we should not have any.
This point about the Pope living behind walls may be cliched now, but it's not overly simplistic or false. It, in fact, gets right to the heart of the matter.
The Vatican could not exist if it did not have rules for who can come and when and how and in what capacity, and if it did not also enforce those rules. Nothing can exist without that sort of system and without the enforcement of that system, which means that our country could not exist without it.
When the Pope condemns our immigration enforcement, he is in effect declaring that the United States has no moral right to exist. Whether he's thought it all the way through or not, whether he fully realizes that those are the implications of his false statements about our immigration laws, I cannot say because I can't read his mind.
Either he's thought it through and knows that he's attacking the very existence of our country, which would be very bad, or he hasn't thought it through and doesn't even understand what he's saying or what it actually means, which in fact would be even worse. And either way, he is wrong.
He is extremely wrong. And as a Catholic, I feel compelled and duty bound to say so.
And now I have.

And that'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day.
Godspeed.